HC directs District Judge Gaziabad to inquire how two contradictory orders were uploaded online on line in a defamation case:

The Allahabad High Court had directed the district Judge, Ghaziabad to inquire as to how two contradictory orders were uploaded online in a defamation case.

Disposing of a petition filed by one Parul Agarwal, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed, “So far as conduct of magistrate is concerned, the court finds that he was not careful, therefore, an unsigned contrary order was uploaded. He has also not initiated any inquiry against the staff concerned. The court is informed that he is a young magistrate, therefore, keeping given his long career, I am not passing any adverse order. However, the district judge concerned is directed to initiate an inquiry, under which circumstances the staff of the concerned court has uploaded two unsigned draft orders on the website. A copy of the report is placed on record of this court”.

However, the court refrained from taking any action against the concerned additional chief judicial magistrate even as it found that he had not been careful and had not even initiated any inquiry against the staff concerned.

During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner referred to the said orders in both applications and submitted that the order whereby the complaint was dismissed was uploaded on the concerned website though it was unsigned whereas the order whereby the applicant was summoned under section 500 (defamation) of IPC was a signed order.

This court in its order dated May 20, 2024, had sought an explanation from the concerned judicial magistrate, who filed an affidavit through the high court’s counsel Sudhir Mehrotra, which the court took on record. In his affidavit, the magistrate concerned had tendered his unconditional apology, and an explanation was given that the staff of his court had unintentionally uploaded unsigned and draft orders without his consent.

In the present defamation case filed by one Parul Agarwal, the court remitted back the matter to the trial court concerned to pass a fresh order by the law after taking note of referred judgments and after hearing the complainant expeditiously, preferably within three months from today, if there is no legal impediment.